Share this story

Further Reading

A Sacramento, California, man was sentenced Thursday to over three years in prison for unlawful manufacture of a firearm and one count of dealing firearms.

Last year, Daniel Crowninshield pleaded guilty to those counts in exchange for federal prosecutors dropping other charges. According to investigators, Crowninshield, known online as "Dr. Death," would sell unfinished AR-15 lower receivers, which customers would then pay for him to transform into fully machined lower receivers using a computer numerically controlled (CNC) mill. (In October 2014, Cody Wilson, of Austin, Texas, who has pioneered 3D-printed guns, began selling a CNC mill called "Ghost Gunner," designed to work specifically on the AR-15 lower.)

"In order to create the pretext that the individual in such a scenario was building his or her own firearm, the skilled machinist would often have the individual press a button or put his or her hands on a piece of machinery so that the individual could claim that the individual, rather than the machinist, made the firearm," the government claimed in its April 14 plea agreement.

Under federal law, it is allowed to manufacture your own firearm (even with a CNC mill), but it is not allowed to do so for others without proper licensing.

In a Thursday statement, Special Agent in Charge Jill A. Snyder, of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, said that Crowninshield "owned and operated a machine shop where he allowed customers with unknown backgrounds to use his machinery to unlawfully manufacture firearms for profit. That activity posed a very dangerous threat to the safety of our communities."

Share this story

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

355 Reader Comments

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not specifically say you can make arms but it seems hard to justify the making of arms as restrictable. In order to keep and bear arms someone or ideally many someones need to be able to make them. Were gunsmiths regulated back in the day?

On the other hand it could be viewed as a gun safety issue. We don't want poorly made weapons.

Maybe one of our lurking constitutional lawyers can comment with a realistic opinion.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

It's a start, unfortunately one has to wonder how many nut jobs got one of these.Anyone who thinks they need a semi or full auto for hunting shouldn't be hunting. The skill is in a single shot. With the proliferation of these style of firearms the consequences of an individual going rogue get scarier by the day. Those that say if more people are armed will deter said nut jobs have never been in a live fire situation, and in such a situation the odds of collateral damage, (nice cop out phrase) escalate.

So, had he done like a two week workshop teaching people to make their own guns and then allowed them to use his machinery that would have probably been legal? It seems difficult to draw a line, but the one the drew here has some jagged edges if you ask me.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

I'm pretty sure a lot of this has to do with the fact he hadn't paid billions in campaign contributions and the salaries of NRA lobbyists like all the other manufacturers.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

You can usually do whatever yourself as long as you do not harm others.

Manufacturing apparently requires licensing. This is not an undue burden and this guy got caught on the wrong side. One of our lurking constitutional lawyers can chime in with the possibility of this making it to the supreme court.

If it does it seems likely to fall to a 2nd amendment challenge after Garlich takes the mantle.

This is at the shooting edge of tech vs law so controversy will reign until the supremes settle it at high noon.

There was a home brew company that used to do a similar thing, they had all the equipment, recipes and ingredients to make nice beers but dodged all the regulations of being a brewery by having the customer press the button to make things go.

No idea if that's a thing in the US, it's just with reasoning like Snyder's I could see a lot of other businesses caught out.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

IANAL but I have heard an explanation that this was added in to prevent the central government from killing off the national guards of the states and usurp military power solely for itself.

I have operated arms as of age 4. My natural inclination is to regulate the arms with reasonable restrictions. Like not in bars, no guns for mental cases, nice computerized tracing systems. But I am becoming an American, and I see the other sides point that you just cannot slippery slope this right away. So maybe just criminal and nut job restrictions? It is a wild bracing feeling to have such simple rules to live by.

We're going to an era when everyone can build their own firearms in their home with the right resources (materials and designs).That's why we need to be greatly educated for that. We really don't need people to run amok with easily accessible killing devices.

The running amock rate will literally not change. If you want it to then instead of throwing our basket cases into jail we need to bring back the Asylums and a nice permanent solution under psychiatric care. Yes, we blame God Emperor Raygun for letting the crazies out of Arkham and shifting the burden onto the jails.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

You can usually do whatever yourself as long as you do not harm others.

Manufacturing apparently requires licensing. This is not an undue burden and this guy got caught on the wrong side. One of our lurking constitutional lawyers can chime in with the possibility of this making it to the supreme court.

If it does it seems likely to fall to a 2nd amendment challenge after Garlich takes the mantle.

This is at the shooting edge of tech vs law so controversy will reign until the supremes settle it at high noon.

I ain't no lawyer though.

All commercially manufactured guns are required to have a serial number, the manufacturer required to keep records of guns manufactured and sold, and the weapons sold through a federally licensed firearms dealer. If you manufacture a weapon yourself for your own personal use, no serial number or records keeping is required, but then you may never sell that weapon to anyone else.

In legal terms, the AR-15 lower receiver carries the serial number, so legally, that is the "gun", even though it may be nothing more than a oddly shaped piece of metal by itself. You can buy all the other parts without going through a federally licensed dealer, but without the lower receiver, they do not count as a gun. You can buy an partly finished, unserialized lower receiver, and finish it yourself (basically it requires a trivial amount of machine work to remove a bit of metal and drill some holes), and this counts as manufacturing a weapon for personal use, and will never require a serial number, but you can never sell it.

This guy was selling unfinished lower receivers, hence no serial number and no record keeping, and then using what he thought was a legal fig leaf via having the customer push start on the CNC mill to cover the fact that he was completing the manufacture of the weapon for the customer.

Under federal law, it is allowed to manufacture your own firearm (even with a CNC mill), but it is not allowed to do so for others without proper licensing.

So zip guns are legal? And no I don't see any problem with laws that allow individuals to owned a restricted object but only if they made it themselves without assistance... great laws those kinds of laws /s

Slippery slope: in order to learn how to make your own weapons you need to research the topic. Are those who post that information online "helping" you make them? It's not like overly ambitious DAs haven't pursued this line of thinking before.

We're going to an era when everyone can build their own firearms in their home with the right resources (materials and designs).That's why we need to be greatly educated for that. We really don't need people to run amok with easily accessible killing devices.

The running amock rate will literally not change.

Let me clarify that.It's not about someone who goes crazy, takes a shotgun and makes a Columbine with it.It's about normal, common people who commonly think that bringing a gun with them is common and acceptable, even without a proper education and classification. The Second Amendment, combined with new technologies and lobbies of gun makers, is literally an explosive mix.

Under federal law, it is allowed to manufacture your own firearm (even with a CNC mill), but it is not allowed to do so for others without proper licensing.

So zip guns are legal? And no I don't see any problem with laws that allow individuals to owned a restricted object but only if they made it themselves without assistance... great laws those kinds of laws /s

Slippery slope: in order to learn how to make your own weapons you need to research the topic. Are those who post that information online "helping" you make them? It's not like overly ambitious DAs haven't pursued this line of thinking before.

As a programmer I can assure you that 3D printing + recipes completely crush that. The research will be what is the best printer to buy / rent. Then you select the recipe with the highest upvotes or whatever strikes your fancy. Insert materials.

Click.

Courts and governments may try to blame someone in that chain, but it is ultimately some individual deciding to make a gun that results in a custom made gun.

The interesting case would be if you make the plans and send them out to a 3D print shop for printing. Do you arrest the shop ... owner / operator? What if the shop is completely automated?

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

pfft shocked? america is the land of controversy hell when we run out we invent controversy!and im saying this as a american!

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

You can usually do whatever yourself as long as you do not harm others.

Manufacturing apparently requires licensing. This is not an undue burden and this guy got caught on the wrong side. One of our lurking constitutional lawyers can chime in with the possibility of this making it to the supreme court.

If it does it seems likely to fall to a 2nd amendment challenge after Garlich takes the mantle.

This is at the shooting edge of tech vs law so controversy will reign until the supremes settle it at high noon.

I ain't no lawyer though.

IANAL either, but since this was a plea deal I doubt it's getting anywhere near the Supremes.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

You can usually do whatever yourself as long as you do not harm others.

Manufacturing apparently requires licensing. This is not an undue burden and this guy got caught on the wrong side. One of our lurking constitutional lawyers can chime in with the possibility of this making it to the supreme court.

If it does it seems likely to fall to a 2nd amendment challenge after Garlich takes the mantle.

This is at the shooting edge of tech vs law so controversy will reign until the supremes settle it at high noon.

I ain't no lawyer though.

IANAL either, but since this was a plea deal I doubt it's getting anywhere near the Supremes.

Pretty much, as he plead guilty there is no controversy for any higher court to review, and no decision in law that a lower court has made which may be in error. The prosecutor put the charges, and the defendant agreed.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

IANAL but I have heard an explanation that this was added in to prevent the central government from killing off the national guards of the states and usurp military power solely for itself.

I have operated arms as of age 4. My natural inclination is to regulate the arms with reasonable restrictions. Like not in bars, no guns for mental cases, nice computerized tracing systems. But I am becoming an American, and I see the other sides point that you just cannot slippery slope this right away. So maybe just criminal and nut job restrictions? It is a wild bracing feeling to have such simple rules to live by.

if you plan to drink more alcohol than a fish does water no gun for that night.if you have more voices in your head than the woo-tang clan no gun for you!if your stupid enough to get caught, and put in jail for a violent crime, no more guns for you.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

Read the article again. It is legal in America for people to "create their own" gun. It is not legal for someone to be in the business of helping others create their own without a license to do so. I'm very pro-gun but this person was clearly in the wrong, though I don't think he should have gotten anywhere near four years in prison.

I really don't understand America at all. It is legal to own firearms or even produce your own. Yet there is it a man who helped people create their own and got prison for it.... So it is legal to own and make or not??? (Disclaimer: I'm just shocked about the controversy of American firearm laws)

You can usually do whatever yourself as long as you do not harm others.

Manufacturing apparently requires licensing. This is not an undue burden and this guy got caught on the wrong side. One of our lurking constitutional lawyers can chime in with the possibility of this making it to the supreme court.

If it does it seems likely to fall to a 2nd amendment challenge after Garlich takes the mantle.

This is at the shooting edge of tech vs law so controversy will reign until the supremes settle it at high noon.

I ain't no lawyer though.

All commercially manufactured guns are required to have a serial number, the manufacturer required to keep records of guns manufactured and sold, and the weapons sold through a federally licensed firearms dealer. If you manufacture a weapon yourself for your own personal use, no serial number or records keeping is required, but then you may never sell that weapon to anyone else.

In legal terms, the AR-15 lower receiver carries the serial number, so legally, that is the "gun", even though it may be nothing more than a oddly shaped piece of metal by itself. You can buy all the other parts without going through a federally licensed dealer, but without the lower receiver, they do not count as a gun. You can buy an partly finished, unserialized lower receiver, and finish it yourself (basically it requires a trivial amount of machine work to remove a bit of metal and drill some holes), and this counts as manufacturing a weapon for personal use, and will never require a serial number, but you can never sell it.

This guy was selling unfinished lower receivers, hence no serial number and no record keeping, and then using what he thought was a legal fig leaf via having the customer push start on the CNC mill to cover the fact that he was completing the manufacture of the weapon for the customer.

I did find it amusing he thought the legal fig leaf would actually work. He owns the equipment, he loads the machine, he programs the machine. Literally the only thing the customer did was press the button. Did he really think the courts would buy the argument that the customer made the gun and not him, when he did 99% of the work?

We're going to an era when everyone can build their own firearms in their home with the right resources (materials and designs).That's why we need to be greatly educated for that. We really don't need people to run amok with easily accessible killing devices.

The running amock rate will literally not change.

Let me clarify that.It's not about someone who goes crazy, takes a shotgun and makes a Columbine with it.It's about normal, common people who commonly think that bringing a gun with them is common and acceptable, even without a proper education and classification. The Second Amendment, combined with new technologies and lobbies of gun makers, is literally an explosive mix.

Yes but again, right now I can drive to Walmart and buy a gun. This is infinitely cheaper than 3D printer + plans and materials -> my own gun of dubious quality.

I can maybe buy teenagers with personal 3D printers having guns at a higher rate. They can already purchase long guns though so ... an increase in other arms for them? Maybe?

On the other hand I live in California where gun toting is not a thing. So I just do not see the issue. And if you are Lee "Have Gun Will Travel" Hutchinson from Texas then you are surrounded with gun culture and the general level of knowledge is high and above what you are claiming.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

It does also contain the (often forgotten) words "well regulated". This seems to make sensible regulations not just allowable, but required. It also seems to disqualify nutjobs that do not want to register for a militia.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

It does also contain the (often forgotten) words "well regulated". This seems to make sensible regulations not just allowable, but required. It also seems to disqualify nutjobs that do not want to register for a militia.

Yes but well regulated applies to the militia. It has nothing to do with the people and the arms and the bearing and the tight jeans and cowboy boots.

It's a start, unfortunately one has to wonder how many nut jobs got one of these.Anyone who thinks they need a semi or full auto for hunting shouldn't be hunting. The skill is in a single shot. With the proliferation of these style of firearms the consequences of an individual going rogue get scarier by the day. Those that say if more people are armed will deter said nut jobs have never been in a live fire situation, and in such a situation the odds of collateral damage, (nice cop out phrase) escalate.

Not everyone is concerned with "the skill is in a single shot" when they go hunting. Pig hunting, for example, is often more about killing as many as you can since they are invasive species in America.

As for the threat of unlawful use of a emi-auto weapons, then you would also have to include pistols if you are afraid of people "going rouge."

Of course there is deterrence in a situation where plenty of responsible people are armed. That anyone would even dare argue that point is ridiculous. You would then have to say that criminals are not deterred by armed police. That said, you can never stop all cases of someone wanting to do others harm and you can not eliminate the risk of someone innocent being unintentionally hurt. It happens with police and yet no one will argue that police should be unarmed, except maybe in the odd case of the U.K.

My take on this is that the government was upset that he was "selling" (read creating and letting a customer push the button) firearms without a license. Also, the firearms would not be traceable. The government has decided that even though we can keep and bear arms, they want to know how many there are, and who has them. What would have happened if he had just given them away? Would that be legal? What if he taught a class? Thirty people in the class at say $1500 per head. He teaches you the basics of the CNC and fabrication over eight hours. Then part of the class is you setting up, under his guidance, the machining of the receiver. And then a minimal fee for each additional receiver you'd like to make.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

IANAL but I have heard an explanation that this was added in to prevent the central government from killing off the national guards of the states and usurp military power solely for itself.

I have operated arms as of age 4. My natural inclination is to regulate the arms with reasonable restrictions. Like not in bars, no guns for mental cases, nice computerized tracing systems. But I am becoming an American, and I see the other sides point that you just cannot slippery slope this right away. So maybe just criminal and nut job restrictions? It is a wild bracing feeling to have such simple rules to live by.

Take special notice of the "well regulated" bit. A bunch of random people with no organisation running around like headless chickens does not qualify as "well regulated militia" in my opinion.

A better question; when did Mr. Random McParanoid become a "well regulated militia"?

As for quarros, he did more than just "help", he basicly did everything and then just have the customer touch the item and then claimed that it was the customer and not him that had made it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not matter who the militia is. The point is that the militia keeps us safe. The militia is composed of citizens. So we allow citizens to be armed no matter what so they can show up to the militia and represent.

It does also contain the (often forgotten) words "well regulated". This seems to make sensible regulations not just allowable, but required. It also seems to disqualify nutjobs that do not want to register for a militia.

Yes but well regulated applies to the militia. It has nothing to do with the people and the arms and the bearing and the tight jeans and cowboy boots.

You, and most people that are anti-gun, simply don't understand what that sentence is saying. The people come before the militia. The people are the militia. That they can then be regulated into a fighting force to defend the country is secondary. The right of the people to bear arms is primary. During the revolution many, if not most, militia were already armed Americans. Also consider that the "security of a free state" includes freedom that could be denied to Americans by their own state. Think about it and look into the history.

Also consider looking into how written English of that period differs to today. Sentences were often long with many preceding points.

My take on this is that the government was upset that he was "selling" (read creating and letting a customer push the button) firearms without a license. Also, the firearms would not be traceable. The government has decided that even though we can keep and bear arms, they want to know how many there are, and who has them. What would have happened if he had just given them away? Would that be legal? What if he taught a class? Thirty people in the class at say $1500 per head. He teaches you the basics of the CNC and fabrication over eight hours. Then part of the class is you setting up, under his guidance, the machining of the receiver. And then a minimal fee for each additional receiver you'd like to make.

I'd think the class thing may be more permissible and more of a grey area. Maybe if he offered several other options of things to make, then he could say it's just a machining class and they chose one of many final projects to prove their skills. I'd say he lost because he was essentially doing 99% of the work so there's no way the argument the guy who did nothing but push the button actually made the receiver would fly with any reasonable person.

I did find it amusing he thought the legal fig leaf would actually work. He owns the equipment, he loads the machine, he programs the machine. Literally the only thing the customer did was press the button. Did he really think the courts would buy the argument that the customer made the gun and not him, when he did 99% of the work?

He took a plea deal. If he let the case go to trial, we would have a better idea of what is actually required to be in the clear, short of a gun manufacturing license. A gun manufacturing license is outside the realm of a hobbyist and clearly isn't an option for regular people.

If the customer loaded the blank, loaded the program, pushed the start button, and assembled the finished rifle, would that be enough? Or is the man still "illegally manufacturing firearms" even though the customer did all the work and the man provided materials, equipment and training only? Only a judge, or possibly a jury, could make this decision.

We're going to an era when everyone can build their own firearms in their home with the right resources (materials and designs).That's why we need to be greatly educated for that. We really don't need people to run amok with easily accessible killing devices.

You mean like people with cars and trucks that can be driven into crowds?

It's because of reasons like this that I'm against gun control. It is my belief that the criminals will always obtain a gun if they want one. So while I don't like gun violence, the ability for lawful people to own guns is the lesser of two evils when compared with just the bad guys having guns.

I'm also glad in this case the court found this guy guilty. I believe that was the right choice.

To everyone who commented on mine:I don't know how much you guys know on how a modern CNC mill operates. But we are getting real close to have it fully automated. Which means that in a few years it will be possible to just load in the desired part model, and the model of the preform, and that's it you get your part. The mill software will do everything even realignment of the part. Therefore it is literally a push of a button away to get your part. So in light of this I really don't see the distinction anymore. If i take this ruling literally than it means you cant have a business model of renting out modern CNC mills or 3D printers that can print metal parts. Because if you do, than you better have a whole lot of filters to bock 3D shapes that can be used as a receiver.